Does God Exist?

Can you prove that God exists? Stay tuned for today's episode of Renewing Your Mind. the notion of self-creation Is what we would call formally absurd. That is to say, it's a contradictory, absurd notion. For something to create itself, it would have to exist before it existed.

Bringing up that you're a Christian can be intimidating, can't it? We can be scared that someone will bring up an opposition to the Christian faith that we can't answer. Even a fundamental objection, like the existence of God Himself. This is the Monday edition of Renewing Your Mind. I'm Nathan W.

Bingham, and this week, you'll hear messages from RC Sprolls series Christian Evidences. It's a series recorded in the early days of the Ligonier Valley Study Centre with students in attendance and of course, Dr. Sproll's iconic chalkboard. This series hasn't been featured on Renewing Your Mind for almost two decades, so you won't want to miss an episode. And when you donate this week to support this daily outreach, you can own this series for life.

Plus, to further help you to be equipped to defend the faith. Will send you the 32-message series, Defending Your Faith, and the immensely popular book, A Field Guide on False Teaching. which covers topics like deism. The Prosperity Gospel, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Islam, New Age spirituality, and much more. Simply give your donation and request this significant offer at renewingyourmind.org before midnight Thursday.

So, does God exist? is a young RC sprawl. The purpose for this brief series of lectures in Christian evidences is not to give us a technical. approach to the science of apologetics. but to deal with practical methods of answering those questions that we most frequently hear.

raised and objections directed against The Christian faith. The one I'd like to deal with this morning is the basic question of the existence of God.

Well the particular dimension Of the Christian concept of God that comes into Assault Bicecular man. is the notion of God the Creator. Traditionally and historically, the most persistent argument for the existence of God in Western civilization has been the cosmological argument.

So-called because it involves a reasoning backward. on the basis of the law of cause and effect which we call causality, From the existence of the world or the cosmos, hence we call it the cosmological argument, to the existence of God. We reason from the present order to the basis of an eternal first cause or creator.

Now that argument has come into enormous disrepute. for all kinds of reason. that is, at an intellectual and academic level. For the most part, the philosophical institutions of this world, as well as the theological institutions of this world, have abandoned. The A use of the cosmological argument on the basis that it cannot produce evidence for the existence of a Creator God.

The man who's perhaps most responsible. who are demolishing The effectiveness of the cosmological argument historically is Immanuel Kant. whose classic work, The Critique of Pure Reason, gave a Throughgoing analysis. of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. and his critique sought to indicate that we cannot move intellectually from this world to some kind of transcendent, supernatural, self-existent, eternal being.

Not all of Christendom has rolled over and played dead. at the feet of Kant. Others have maintained that Kant's critique misses the point and that Kant's critique can be. Leveled. by a careful analysis.

But those who have sought to maintain some notion of the cosmological argument have done so at the risk of alienating themselves from the whole mainstream of contemporary philosophy and theology. And they represent a very small group and their arguments are at best a minority report. I'm looking forward to the day when that's not the case because I happened to participate in that minority report and I think that it's a disastrous thing for Christians to roll over and play dead at the feet of Khan. But I don't want to get into the technical dimensions of the cosmological argument this morning. I want to deal with this a very practical way.

People come up to you and they say, you know, how do you believe in God? How should you answer them? I heard on the radio a few weeks ago, one of these talk shows. And the talk host had somebody on the phone who was berating modern man for still clinging to vestigial remnants of primitive thought patterns and still believing in the existence of God. And this man was saying, in light of modern science and modern discoveries of the origin of the universe, et cetera, et cetera, there's no excuse for anyone still clinging to this antiquated notion of God as creator.

And then, of course, somebody else spooned in, and the woman who called in spoke with very, very poor grammar. She obviously was kind of a washerwoman, grassroots, gutsy type of person, but she was outraged by this heathen attack on the existence of God. And she says, I just have one thing to tell that lady who's in here saying there ain't no God. She says, I just want her to go right outside and just look at that sky out there and just look at them trees and all that stuff. And I just want that woman to tell me how they got here and where they came from because anybody just opens their eyes and looks at the world.

They know there has to be somebody who put all that together. You know, what that lady was doing was articulating the cosmological argument. And the old argument, look at the world and explain the origin of the world on natural causes, is one that, in spite of the massive critique leveled by Kant and his followers, is still a very, very effective argument. For the existence of God. And what I'm going to try to do here in the brief time is to reduce.

that argument to its basic essentials. and try to give you a way in which you can articulate the argument. That will be effective in dealing with the skeptic.

Now I'm not saying that this argument is going to convince everybody of the existence of God, but certainly you'll be able to give a credible reply for the reason why we maintain a confident belief. in the notion of God the Creator. I'm going to do this both in terms of giving a brief. Outline for a positive defense, and then at the same time, an outline for a critique of alternate views. that persist in our world today.

And I'd like to, before I do this, give you a little personal testimony on this. I've dealt with this basic argument again and again and again and again and again. not only at the grassroots level, But with professional philosophers, those who are philosophy professors, With professional atheists, you know, that is that their whole identity intellectually is found there. I've articulated this argument with Postdoctoral graduate professors and teachers at Harvard, at Yale, and all other kinds of places, and I've yet to find someone. put a hole in this argument.

And I find people Befuddled and somewhat annoyed, but they are suddenly getting on the defensive about this particular argument. It's very simple. in the form in which I give it. The basic argument is this. that nature indicates and evidences the existence of something That is self-existent and eternal.

That's what we're trying to demonstrate.

Now that in and of itself does not give us Yahweh, the God of the Bible. And we're not going to at this point establish a whole thoroughgoing notion or doctrine of God on the basis of this argument initially. But all we're going to try to answer is the objection that science. And modern philosophy has ruled out the possibility of an eternal creator.

Okay.

Well Here's the way we do it. The first thing we try to demonstrate or get people to affirm is that something exists now.

Something exists now. If they refuse to acknowledge the truth of that primary assertion that something exists now. we don't have to worry about dealing with them. Because they represent no threat to the Christian faith because they don't even exist. They have no right to even raise the objection unless they're willing to acknowledge that they are standing there raising the objection.

And if they are raising the objection, then we have something that exists.

Someone standing there raising an objection against the existence of God. That's manifestly. It's not difficult to get people to acknowledge that something exists. Every now and then, you'll find somebody who wants to play the solipsistic game and say, Well, I'm not even sure that I exist or that you exist and all that. I say, Well, then let's just deal with this hypothetically.

If something exists, Right. what would be necessary to account for the existence of that something. All right, so we say that something exists now.

Now the question is. Does that which exists? Exists in and of itself. Or does it owe its existence to something else that does exist? In and of itself.

And we reduce the question of the possible causes for the universe that exists. to three. That the universe that exists is either self-existent Self created. Created. Bye.

Another. Who is either self-existent or self-created? Can anybody in here think of any other alternative?

Now, when I go through this with people, I just spot these three things and get them to say, Are there any other options? I always give that invitation. people to suggest other options. The only other option I've ever heard is that the universe is an illusion, which throws us back to the first point. But once a person grants, that something exists in reality now.

Can we account for that existence any other way except by one of these three?

Now, let's look at these.

Now we've reduced it to three. Is there any of these that we can eliminate right off the bat? Self-created self-created. Why? The notion of self-creation is what we would call analytically invalid.

or formally absurd. That is to say, it's a contradictory, absurd notion. For something to create itself, it would have to exist Before it existed. To exist before it existed means that it would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relation. which is an absolutely clear violation of the law of contradiction.

And it's an absurdity. To say that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time in the same relationship. It's like saying this crayon. is not a crayon.

Sorry. That's a nonsense statement. It's gibberish. Do you see that? Could you repeat that?

Could you show that the notion of self-creation is logically absurd? It means that something would have to exist. before it existed. Which is to say, it would have to exist and not exist at the same time, same relationship.

So we know. that this can't be true.

So that reduces the options to an eternally self-existent universe. or a universe that is created by something that is self existent.

Now what have we discovered already? Even at this point, have we accomplished anything? We believe in a God who is self existent, eternal being. And people are saying the notion of a self-existent eternal being is absurd. We say, hey, wait a minute.

You know, not only is it not absurd, there's nothing irrational about a self-existent eternal being formally considered. You know, that doesn't contradict anything.

Now, the question is: does such a thing exist? That's what we're arguing about. Not only is it formally valid, but is there such a thing as a self-existent eternal being? That's the whole issue. And if we've eliminated this.

We've got ourselves a self-existent eternal being.

Now, then you have to deal with the man who says, Oh, yes, okay, I see that something has to have existed eternally.

Something has to be self-existent, but we'll call it the universe.

Now we move the argument completely out of the formal realm of logic.

Now you get into the empirical realm of science. And we just simply have to ask the question. What is the evidence? For the universe in its whole or in any one of its parts Being Eternal.

Now, suddenly, we have changed the whole intellectual climate.

Now we have an avalanche. of opinion from the secular world. From the scientific world that argues consistently that the universe. has a temporal beginning. And if it has a temporal beginning, it's finite.

If it's finite, it is not self-existent and eternal. We know of nothing in the realm of science that's eternally self-existent. But people will argue theoretically.

Well still There must be some part Beyond that realm of the scientific universe that we know of empirically, that is self-existent and eternal, and we say, Yes, there must be.

Okay, and then we say, wonder what it is. What would it have to be like in order to produce? All the things that we're talking about here. And it strangely will begin more and more to resemble. the Christian concept of God, even though you call it by another name.

But the thing that we've established here is the absolute necessity of postulating a self-existent eternal.

Something. Then it gets more sophisticated to argue whether or not it's personal or impersonal, intelligent or non-intelligent. etc. But the basic objection. that we're facing in the modern age.

has already been solved. Those who would argue that the universe is self-created.

Now I want to spend a little bit more time on that. Two things. First, I want to respond to people who say, that the universe is in and of itself. The material universe is eternal. Again, I ask people first of all to produce evidence.

that would demonstrate that the physical universe is eternal. Which puts them immediately, as I said, on a collision course with the collected data and monolithic results. of modern science.

Now they're on the defensive.

Now they're in a minority. At that point. But there are two ways. that they can still argue for the eternality of the material universe. One is by arguing that the universe as a whole Even though all of the individual parts But we have.

of the universe. that we know of. are contingent finite and temporal. There are those who argue nonetheless the whole. Considered in and of itself.

is greater than the sum of its parts. That the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The other argument that you'll hear in response is That there is some aspect of the universe. That is eternal and self-existence that we haven't discovered yet.

Well, even if a person puts forth this argument. As soon as we say, I say, well, first of all, you're arguing from silence. You've given us no evidence that there is an aspect of the universe that is as yet unknown that will explain. the presence of the universe that is finite that we know about.

So, we point out very quickly that their argument is an argument from silence with no evidence. But it's a leap of faith. That they are Establishing it. But there's something even more devastating. To bring to bear to this kind of argument, and that is.

That if there is theoretically some aspect of the universe. That is self-existent. And eternal. Why would we consider that aspect to be part of the universe? Because by its very nature It would be radically different from everything else that we consider as part of the universe by virtue of its being self-existent and eternal.

It would certainly have to be differentiated from everything in the universe that is not self-existent, that is not eternal. That is, it would be different qualitatively and ontologically, that is, with respect to its being and its existence, from everything that we know within the universe. In a sense, By definition, this aspect that people are appealing to. is in some way transcendent. other than, different from, the rest of the universe.

if only by virtue of its being the only aspect that is eternal. And it existed prior to The finite universe, and would have to really talk about two universes: one that is self-existent, eternal. and creative in its power. And the other one that is dependent, finite and temporal in its scope. Do you see that?

Does that make sense?

Alright.

Now. How about the first argument? Here are some. I've seen even Christians succumbing to this: that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. There's two ways in which I see that argument coming to bear.

One is by way of analogy. And the second one is by way of Nonsense statements. The first one is by way of analogy. I've heard it said this way.

Now, if we take, for example, a great painting of Rembrandt, say the Night Watch. that hangs in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. That massive Painting of Rambert. The argument is that that painting illustrates to us by way of analogy how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. because each individual part of that painting is composed of pigments of paint.

You just have in one little piece of paint, in one little pigment, you don't have a massively complex, beautiful work of art. That which is aesthetically beautiful, you just have a dab of paint, but if you put all those dabs of paint together, Then you have something greater. than the sum of its parts, namely, an aesthetic object that is beautiful to behold.

So there are four we can see. that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. What's the problem with that? Does that impress you when you hear an argument like that? I mean, certainly it impresses you.

I I watched your faces while I gave that argument. You know, and you were sitting there, yeah, well sure, the whole is greater than the seven parts. It is a fantastic painting. You don't get that out of an individual portrait. But what have I slipped in on here?

The something else that it isn't the same thing that you're talking about in the previous point. The something else that it is is not the same thing we were talking about in the first place. See, this is the most difficult logical error to catch in a reasoning process: the problem of equivocation, where the meaning of a word in the argument changes ever so subtly throughout the argument. And in this case, it's the word greater. Because the word great Can be used to describe something's volume or its weight or its size.

or it's substance. But the word great can also be used to describe something's Magnificence, its value. its weightiness, etcetera. But here we say the picture in its conclusion is greater than the sum of its parts. In what sense?

Do we take 10,000 pieces? of pigment Saying each one weighing an ounce, that's absurd, but each one weighing an ounce. And when we put all those 10,000 ounces of pigment together, do we get ten thousand and ten ounces? Of pigment? No, you get 10,000 ounces, and that's all you get.

You can't get any more than what's there. Each piece is finite. And we put all the finite pieces together. Can all of the finite pieces add up to an infinite? Self-existent thing.

Certainly not. That's going to be another example of how words can change their meaning in this argument. and occasionally dinner a few years ago with a physics professor from Carnegie Mellon University. And I was talking on the nature of God that night, and he said to me, Kind of in a nice way, but also sort of. Putting the needle in.

And he said, You theologians say, How do you get away with working in such an inexact science, such an unscientific endeavor? I mean, he had relegated theology to the pre-scientific or sub-scientific. Arena. He said. We have no real means of verification of your concepts and all this business.

He says, like the word God. He says, what does it mean? How can you really define the term God concretely and really? It's a meaningless term. I said, well, yeah, I know the problems that theology has in giving adequate definition to the concept of God.

I said, it's kind of like the problem you guys have. in physics. He said, what do you mean? I said, well, like energy. I said, how central is the concept of energy?

to a physicist. It's central. I'm not a physicist, but I do know something about language. Yeah, that's Can you tell me please what energy is? He said, Well, certainly we can define energy.

Energy is the ability to do work. I said, wait a minute, but you talk about the amount of available energy and all of that in the universe is constant or it isn't constant, and you argue over all that business and changing ontological status between matter and energy, don't you? He said, Yeah. I said, So I'm not interested right now in terms of what energy can do. I wonder what it is.

What is it?

Okay.

I don't just want A functional definition. I want an ontological definition because you're using the term as if it were an ontological entity, a reality in and of itself. That's different from matter. I should know what is it? And he says Well, he says, I see what you mean.

He says energy is mc squared. I said, I don't want to know its mathematical equivalent. I don't want to know who it is. I said, you guys are telling the whole world that the ultimate stuff, the ultimate being, the ultimate usia out of which all things are made is energy, and you don't have a clue as to what it is. What if I called it, you know, the Holy Spirit?

How could you possibly object? Unless you can give me some. Medication. of being concerning the nature of energy. I wasn't there to argue about energy.

I'm willing to agree that there's such a thing as energy, and it may reply its effects and secondary ways and all that stuff. But I was just answering the charge. There are concepts. are lacking in content.

Well here the central concept of modern physics has no content. But he was totally unaware of that. Figure that as soon as you describe what something does, you describe what it is. That's not the facts, is it? Although the idea of self-creation is fundamentally absurd, I used to believe it, and many people do.

Nothing exploded and everything came into existence. This is the Monday edition of Renewing Your Mind, and this week you're hearing early recordings from R. C. Sprohl at the Ligonier Valley Study Center, and the series is titled Christian Evidences.

Well, if you're motivated to dig deeper into this subject of apologetics, then be sure to respond to this week's resource offer. In addition to lifetime digital access to this series, Christian Evidences, we'll send you the 32-message DVD series, Defending Your Faith. We'll also unlock those messages and the study guide in the Ligoneir app, and we'll send you a copy of our field guide on false teaching.

so you can quickly understand what Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses believe and how those beliefs oppose Biblical Christianity. Request these resources when you call us at 800-435-4343 with a donation. or when you give online at renewingyourmind.org.

So that's two teaching series, a study guide and a book as our way of saying thank you for helping this daily podcast proclaim the truth of Christianity to countless people every day of the year. Respond now at renewingyourmind.org or use the link in the podcast show notes. Your truth. My truth. Not much annoys me more than hearing people say that.

But why are people so adamant about denying the existence of absolutes? That's the question RC Sprol will tackle tomorrow. Kia on Renewing Your Mind.